Melt pond fraction and spectral sea ice albedo retrieval from MERIS data – Part 1: Validation against in situ, aerial, and ship cruise data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. The presence of melt ponds on the Arctic sea ice strongly affects the energy balance of the Arctic Ocean in summer. It affects albedo as well as transmittance through the sea ice, which has consequences for the heat balance and mass balance of sea ice. An algorithm to retrieve melt pond fraction and sea ice albedo from Medium Resolution Imaging Spectrometer (MERIS) data is validated against aerial, shipborne and in situ campaign data. The results show the best correlation for landfast and multiyear ice of high ice concentrations. For broadband albedo, R2 is equal to 0.85, with the RMS (root mean square) being equal to 0.068; for the melt pond fraction, R2 is equal to 0.36, with the RMS being equal to 0.065. The correlation for lower ice concentrations, subpixel ice floes, blue ice and wet ice is lower due to ice drift and challenging for the retrieval surface conditions. Combining all aerial observations gives a mean albedo RMS of 0.089 and a mean melt pond fraction RMS of 0.22. The in situ melt pond fraction correlation is R2 = 0.52 with an RMS = 0.14. Ship cruise data might be affected by documentation of varying accuracy within the Antarctic Sea Ice Processes and Climate (ASPeCt) protocol, which may contribute to the discrepancy between the satellite value and the observed value: mean R2 = 0.044, mean RMS = 0.16. An additional dynamic spatial cloud filter for MERIS over snow and ice has been developed to assist with the validation on swath data.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".